The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “abortion rights”

Planned Parenthood/Cecile Richards; NOW/Terry O’Neill And NARAL/Nancy Keenan Have Committed Devestating War Crimes Against Humanity

We who are pro-life must hold those who support abortion, and those who commit that particular legal killing (morally murder) accountable for their barbaric actions.  Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards; NOW, Terry O’Neill; NARAL, Nancy Keenan and the rest of pro-abortion community blatantly turn a blind eye to their reprehensible activities.  The “choice” to support the killing of an unborn child is not a moral value in any sense of the definition.  A new video has gone viral, exposing the hypocrisy and the evil that is Planned Parenthood, and how they help women with “gendercide”, in particular, killing the unborn child if it is a girl.

We who are pro-life will not tolerate this.  Planned Parenthood is guilty of war crimes against humanity and they, and any of their supporters, must be stopped.  We have an obligation to protect innocent life from unwarranted destruction.  Unless the mother’s life is legitimately at risk, there is no reason for an abortion.  Yet, the usual and most prominent of pro-abortion suspects, Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NARAL and Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill and NOW all cackle in delight over their support for the wanton, indiscriminate killing of unborn children at any time during a woman’s pregnancy.

We who are pro-life must continue our verbal and written attacks on Planned Parenthood (no committing murder of our own, or destroying property is acceptable, we understand.  We are not the terrorists – Planned Parenthood is.)  We will not be intimidated by thugs like Cecile Richards, Terry O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, nor will we be silenced.  Take us on, challenge us, try to stop us – just try.  This is our time.  America is vastly more pro-life now than it was thirty years ago.  That trend will only continue, especially the more we expose Planned Parenthood for killing fields they really are.

Women, every day, are being intentionally deceived and defrauded by Planned Parenthood, and aided by NOW and NARAL; emotionally brainwashed and tricked into thinking their unborn child is merely a blob of tissue; psychologically belittled and degraded into thinking their only option is to kill their unborn child.  They have a strong ally in President Barack Obama, who also supports the killing of unborn children.  One more reason why it is so critical to vote him out of office this November.

Abortion is a war crime against humanity and those that contribute to it, encourage it, support and fund it are also guilty of war crimes against humanity.  That means, directly, Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill.  Libel?  Either an unborn child is a human being or it is not.  There is no place, nor any room for, semantics or opinions.  Are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill too stupid to know that an unborn child is a living, breathing human being?  They know.  We need not beat around the bush here.

We who are pro-life must confront Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill head on, challenge them, demand they answer for their war crimes and let them try to squirm their way out of their lies, their hypocrisies, their fraudulence – just try.  We who are pro-life will not abandon the unborn; we will certainly not leave them in the hands of Planned Parenthood.  We will fight for them, for their right to live.  What are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill going to do about it?  Since we do not expect them to come to their senses, dirty and underhanded tricks and some misuse of government comes to mind.  We expect that from them.

The charade that is abortion is coming to an end in America, but that does not mean it is as near its end as we would like it to be.  We have much more work to do.  For example, the House is scheduled to vote to ban sex selective abortion.  It has a very good chance of passing, but the Senate is still questionable.  If it passes the Senate and makes it way to Obama, that will put him in an extremely delicate situation, alienating him with either pro-abortion supporters or women who see sex selection as a war on women, and will hurt his reelection bid regardless of whether he signs it into law or vetoes it.  Obama’s allies in the Senate would naturally do what they could to prevent it from reaching his desk.  However, in their own obstruction, they put themselves and their own political futures in jeopardy.

We must make certain this law first passes the House and moves to the Senate for a vote.  Having  done that, we must push pressure upon and hold each and every single senator accountable who would vote against banning sex selective abortion.  And for those in the House that veto the ban – we must display their names to the entire nation so all Americans can see exactly who supports sex selective abortion.

Our work is not done there.  We also will introduce abortion bans based on color and sexual orientation.  In doing so, these incremental steps we take will go a long way in helping to rid America of abortion.  It will also divide and destroy the pro-abortion movement.  After-all, many gays and lesbians supports abortion, but would they support the killing of an unborn child who might be born gay?  Would blacks who are pro-abortion support the killing of unborn children because they are black?  So, why do Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, Terry O’Neill and NOW, Nancy Keenan and NARAL so smugly believe women who are pro-abortion will so readily accept killing unborn children because they are girls?  Obviously Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill support killing unborn children for any reason, even if they are girls (black and gay included).  Is that the type of American value we want to stand for, or stand up to and ban?

We who are pro-life are not at war with women.  But we are at war with Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill, who happen to be women, and traitors to their own gender.  Let them just try to defend their despicable actions – just try.

Gangs Aren’t The Only Ones Glamorizing Murder, Or Proud Of Themselves For Murdering

Some people are more prone to murder than others.  Gang members, having grown up living in and around a circle of violence, probably all their lives, see death and the killing of others for the sake of their gangs as normal as eating and breathing.  We – we who actually are as normal as eating and breathing – look upon the actions of gang members with derision, disgust and outrage.  We tend to support laws that make it hard for gang members to operate.  And we certainly support laws that punish gang members when they do commit crimes, especially violent crimes like murder.  We certainly do not look upon murder by gang members as justification for the lifestyle they lead.  Nor do we look upon murder by gang members, who murder rival gang members, as justification for having crossed into one another’s “territory”.  In fact – do we ever look upon murder committed by gang members with understanding, compassion, empathy, sympathy or justification?  Do we ever seek to protect the “rights” of gang members to kill one another?  Do we ever attempt to grant “rights” for gang members to kill one another?  If not – why?

If gang members must kill one another to survive in their own world; if gang members must kill one another to show superiority and who is in, and who has, “control”; if gang members must kill or risk being killed themselves (a sort of self-defense); if gang members must kill one another to preserve the integrity and the “health” of their gangs; if gang members killing one another is mostly a “private” affair between one gang and another; if gang members killing one another is only hurting themselves, and that is the decision they “choose” to live by – then why are any of us so overly concerned whether or not gangs members are killing one another?  Why do we waste time, energy and taxes dollars trying to stop gangs from operating by arresting them, putting them on trial and then in jail?  Why do we pass all types of restrictive legislation that makes it harder to be in a gang, and to make committing a crime while in a gang, especially murder, more harsh, more difficult, more painful?  And – why, when one gang member kills another gang member, do we call that, of all things – murder?  Isn’t that a bit hypocritical, all things considered?

All things like the fact that there are millions of people who have committed murder, who have never been in a gang, and who have the full support of many millions more people, including politicians, judges, entire courts millions of people who will never be arrested, prosecuted or serve one day in jail for having committed murder.  And – many of whom who would not only not hesitate to commit murder again, but would openly brag about it, defend it, celebrate it!  After-all – they too have grown up surrounded by a culture that supports what is otherwise, morally and ethically, at least, murder, even if they, just as gang members, don’t see it that way.

What is the real difference between gang members who commit murder on a street corner or in a back alley and these people who commit murder in a place located near a street corner, and sometimes also in a back alley?

Planned Parenthood Is Praying, Literally, For The Death Of Unborn Children

It’s apparently hard times for Planned Parenthood, and they are hurting, financially, as more women choose life for their unborn children rather than the sought after death that pro-abortion supporters have been fighting decades to increase.  In response to this,  Planned Parenthood has taken a new and unusual approach.  Although one can hardly call Planned Parenthood religious, they hasn’t stopped them from turning to God in prayer – praying for more business. They are literally praying for women to come into abortion clinics and end their pregnancies.  And, as it turns out, they have some help from an unexpected source.  Christians, usually an arch-enemy of abortion advocates, have come to the aid of Planned Parenthood.  And Planned Parenthood, needing all the help it can get, is not turning a blind eye on these “religious” fanatics.  Is there any new low Planned Parenthood is not willing to go?

Religions do not differ on the life issue – all major religions are pro-life and oppose abortion, which is the killing of unborn children.  However, individuals with warped minds, and a false sense of what religion is and what it represents, have managed to infiltrate these religions with pro-abortion, pro-liberal, pro-Leftist propaganda and have begun to warp and twist religion, bend, weaken and tweak it in order to make religion irrelevant.  Because, right now religion, and the conservative elements of Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, even Mormonism, are what is holding together the fabric, the sanctity, the value of human life.

What happens, then, when liberal, pro-abortion organizations find ways to infiltrate what has always been a safe haven for life?  What happens when more “religious” people turn their backs on life and embrace death?  And what exactly is the reason why anyone would embrace death for unborn children, rather than life?  Obviously, there is nothing in the deal for the unborn children that are aborted.  What is in it for the women who have the abortions?  For that matter, what is in it for those “religious Christians” that have sided with Planned Parenthood?  We know full well what Planned Parenthood has to gain from abortion, and more abortions, right?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 9: To Her, A “Wrongful Birth” Means One Less Abortion

Pro-abortion advocates, and Michelle Goldberg, who frequently cheer-leads for the cause, see no value, no worth, no actual life in any fetus to begin with.  But a fetus which has developed some type of abnormality, such a Downs Syndrome, or where one or more of its body parts is either deformed or missing altogether is even less worth saving, from the pro-abortion perspective.  Many women obviously would want to abort such children “for their own good” – the child’s own good, that is.  But is the mother really aborting the child for its own good, or hers?

Outrage within the pro-abortion community is brewing over whether or not a doctor can intentionally keep information about a woman’s unborn child from her when abnormalities arise, thinking, fearing she might abort it if she found out.  Arizona just passed a bill to protect doctors who lie to pregnant mothers in what has been dubbed “wrongful birth”.  Wrongful birth, because had the mother known of the “malady” ahead of the birth, she might have opted for the abortion instead, thereby “sparing” the child all the “pain” and “hurt” and “psychological” and “emotional” scars it would encounter throughout its life.  Death, advocates Michelle Goldberg, and pro-abortion supporters, is the preferred option.

From The Daily Beast, writes Michelle:

In some states, though, anti-abortion activists are pushing legislation to protect doctors who don’t give women all available information about their pregnancies. Arizona and Kansas are considering bills that would ban lawsuits in cases where doctors fail to warn their patients about birth defects. The Arizona law, which is similar to legislation that exists in a handful of other states, would apply only when doctors make a mistake. But the Kansas provision, part of a sweeping, 69-page anti-abortion bill, would allow physicians to lie to women who might otherwise terminate their pregnancies. It is similar to a law in Oklahoma passed two years ago—in concert, ironically, with mandatory ultrasound legislation.

While Michelle is flabbergasted that a woman would not be given the information about her unborn child’s development, or underdevelopment, so she can quickly abort it if she chooses, interestingly, but not surprisingly, Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates, would rather deny women the right to know the child they are about to abort is actually a human being by showing the mother an ultrasound image of her child.  This begs the question – if a woman would feel uncomfortable viewing a picture of a healthy child she is about to kill, would a woman want to see the ultrasound picture of her underdeveloped child so she can feel more comfortable killing it?

Michelle argues that doctors who are allowed to lie are also getting away with their own responsibility in the prenatal care of the fetus, and should complications arise, a doctor who knowingly keeps such information from the mother would not be liable, and therefore cannot be sued.  Well, from the pro-abortion point of view, how can any doctor be sued for “negligence” if a fetus is not a human being to begin with?  Michelle’s argument is baseless if she is also taking the position that a fetus is not a human being.  But if a fetus is a human being, then her and the entire pro-abortion position becomes baseless as well as dangerous.  Michelle cannot have it both ways.

Doctors are fearful, and rightfully so, that when they relay the news to the mother her fetus will not be born “normal” she will want to abort her child rather than give it life.  Granted, doctors ought not lie, or feel compelled to lie, in order to protect the life of an unborn fetus.  Nor ought women feel helpless that a child born with an abnormality, disability or deformity is going to automatically have less quality of life than anyone else.  if anything, it is the pro-abortion movement which has placed doctors in the position of having to lie in order to protect the unborn child from being aborted.

We, who are born relatively normal, cannot fathom our lives without arms or legs, without sight or hearing, without a sound mind, etc.  But for those people who are born without arms or legs, who are born blind and/or deaf, who are born with an underdeveloped brain or any type of disability or abnormality – do they actually miss what they never had?  And would they rather their mothers had killed them in womb than give them a life, an opportunity for life, which pro-abortion advocates consider substandard and subhuman, but which they, and millions of others who were given life, consider a better alternative to death?

Millions of people are born with all sorts of disabilities, abnormalities, complications, etc, and do lead normal, healthy, worthwhile and satisfying lives.  Why would Michelle Goldberg and pro-abortion supporters so selfishly deny these people the right to live?

We, who are born relatively normal, are acting selfishly, and for ourselves, when we support abortion over life.  If a woman has a legal right to abort a child for one reason, then rationally she has a right to abort a child for any reason.  And therein lies the crux of the abortion problem and why this is a situation of all or nothing.  In other words, either we allow abortion for any reason, or we don’t allow it at all.  But if we allow abortion for any reason, pro-abortion advocates must accept, and be willing to accept abortion in cases where a child will be born gay, black (non-white) or female.  Can liberals, like Michelle Goldberg, stomach these types of abortions as well as they stomach every other type of abortion?

If we who are pro-life can challenge Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates on this, we can win this debate faster and easier than arguing abortion from strictly a religious point of view.  Abortion is a moral issue also, and either life has value or it hasn’t.  Force pro-abortion advocates to admit that they support killing black babies, gay babies and female babies in the womb; force them to admit they support killing blind babies, deaf babies, Downs Syndrome babies, and any babies that will be born with any type of abnormalities and they, along with their pro-abortion position, will disintegrate.  Are we up to that challenge?

Abortion Is An Emotional Choice Not A Rational Choice

In America, most irrational behavior, to a degree, is Constitutionally protected.  It is when that behavior begins to threaten people, and threaten their lives that government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right to step in and put a stop to whatever irrational behavior is being exhibited.  Abortion, because it is the taking, and killing, of a human life (although it is “unborn”) is a threat to the very life of a child in the womb.  Therefore, that threat to life constitutes irrational behavior which is not Constitutionally protected.  As a result, government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right, a duty, and a moral obligation and responsibility to step in to protect and prevent the unborn child from being killed in the womb via abortion.

Women who would seek an abortion, rather than carrying the child to full term and giving birth, have been told for decades now that they have a Constitutional right to abortion.  And while the law recognizes a “woman’s right to choose”, there is, however, nothing in the Constitution itself that guarantees a woman with that much liberty.  Roe vs. Wade was decided on emotions rather than rationality.  It was also decided on both misinformation and a lack of information at the time.  The Supreme Court, then, was very adamant, in making its decision, that if ever there was any evidence to prove conclusively that a living human being was being aborted – not a “collection of cells” or a “blob of tissue” – that the abortion should not legally proceed.

In 1973, there were no ultrasounds or sonograms, or any type of cameras or other technologies in use, that could pierce through and see inside the womb and snap pictures of a fetus.  Well, we have that now, and have had that technology for quite some time.  Science has since proven that life does begin at conception.  In other words, at the very moment the male sperm meets and fertilizes the female egg there is a tremendous and instantaneous burst of activity.  Until fertilization, the egg merely waits, and millions of sperm die en route to the egg.

Now that this information exists, it is imperative Roe vs. Wade be revisited and subsequently overturned.   And while Roe vs. Wade will eventually be overturned, obviously the only reason why it hasn’t yet is the result of pro-abortion advocates pleading their support based on emotions rather than rationality.  That, and the fact their organizations, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. are incredibly well funded, financed and organized, and are able to elect politicians and judges who will vote to keep Roe vs. Wade intact.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade by no means abolishes abortion or even makes it illegal.  It will merely revert the decision-making back to the states, who will then have more freedom to legislate abortion according to their own dictates.  It will then be the states, directly, which can make broad and sweeping changes to abortion law.  Some states will naturally have greater restrictions on abortion than others.  Of course, any restrictions on abortion outrage those who support abortion.  But if you look at the people who support abortion on demand (abortion for any reason, at any time during pregnancy) it is inherent that they are arguing from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.

Whatever slogan they happen to use, the whole “It’s our bodies, it’s our choice”, “right to privacy”, “women’s rights”, “women’s heath”, freedom of choice”, mantra all amounts to an emotional outcry, and one that stems from a bygone era that saw many women dying from complicated pregnancies.  Obviously no one, with a rational mind, wants to see, or compel, women to undergo such risky pregnancies by law, and to put their lives in danger, by law, in order to deliver a baby.

But, how is abortion justified when there are no “health” risks to the mother?  How is abortion justified in cases where the mother simply feels she is not ready to give birth; where she feels she cannot adequately or financially care for the child after it has been born; where she has the impression and fear that after the child is born it might experience “neglect, abuse and hatred” by its parents?

These are all emotional outbursts, not rational or clear thinking.  Very few women in America die due to pregnancy any longer.  And where there is a legitimate life threatening issue that cannot be corrected without the abortion, there is no law in America, and there is virtually no one in America that would support such a law, which mandates a woman must sacrifice her own life for her unborn child.  Likewise, if there is a legitimate and specific “health” issue, which is known, which has a name, and research to go along with it; which is documented to be a threat to the woman’s life, and where abortion is yet the only alternative to save the health, and therefore the life, of the woman – no such a law in America now exists, or would ever exist, which would put the life of the unborn child ahead and above that of the woman.  Conservatives support life, and that includes the life of the mother.  We are not so callous, not so irrational in our own thinking that we would intentionally and knowingly put a woman’s life at risk, even if that meant the unborn child would have to be sacrificed.

Rather, it is the rabidly pro-abortion supporters who put emotions ahead and above life itself, and support the destruction of unborn life for any reason a woman would give as validation for having the abortion.  Hence the “right to privacy” and “freedom of choice” mantra, and the nonsense about the “war on women” and men dominating and controlling women and their bodies.  There is no war on women being waged in America with regards to “domination” and “control” of women.  This is simply irrational and emotionally charged doggerel.  The war being waged is a war for life, and the sanctity of life.

Since there are virtually no deaths that occur with pregnancy, even from complications of pregnancy, in modern-day America, what valid reason – not emotional – is there for killing  an unborn child, and why do certain women still demand a right to legally kill and unborn child and fight fiercely to have that right protected?  And why do these pro-abortion women, when there are many millions of women who are just as adamant in their pro-life position, remain staunchly opposed to allowing women seeking an abortion to have as much information about their unborn child as is possible?  Why do pro-abortion women so vehemently condemn ultrasounds when an ultrasound can prove there is indeed an unborn child in the womb?  Invasive?  “Rape”, they claim.  Even if it is a trans-vaginal ultrasound, the “instrument” used is far less menacing than is the instrument used to “remove” the unborn child from the womb.

It can only be gathered that pro-abortion women have one or more ulterior motives compelling them to keep a woman seeking an abortion from knowing the truth.  Again, emotions over rationality.  If a woman is shown a picture of her child as it is in her womb, even the slightest indication of humanity in that woman’s heart, which then would lead to a change of heart, is worrisome to pro-abortion supporters, in particular liberal feminists who despise childbirth and motherhood which they feel represents living in the “Stone Age”.  Is that rationality or emotions?

Ought we to allow abortion, which we know to be the killing of an unborn life, an innocent human being, based off of any number of emotional responses a woman might be going through?  Ought we allow ourselves to give into the irrationality and emotions pro-abortion advocates use to sway us, to lull us, to silence those of us who are pro-life, who value life, who fight for life?

If we do, aren’t we just as culpable, just as guilty, just as reckless as they are that support abortion on demand through emotions rather than rationality?  Where is the rationality in that?

Sandra Fluke: Call Her A Slut, Call Her Round-Heeled – But Don’t Call Her As A Credible Source Of Information

Sandra Fluke is the young “lady” at the center of so much controversy surrounding her blunt testimony about the “need” for birth control and contraception, and why we the taxpayers ought to pay for it, and for her and anyone else to have as much sex as they want.  The issue is not whether or not Sandra ought to be having sex – from a moral point of view she shouldn’t.  Never mind that, for the moment.

Sandra is complaining that the cost of contraception is preventing her from having sex, and others as well.  Rather than take on a second job, presuming she has one job under her belt already, she is addressing lawmakers on Capitol Hill in an attempt to sway them (we the taxpayer) into paying for her promiscuity and sexual escapades.  The crux of her testimony is that she is being denied as many sexual encounters as she wants because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception for each individual encounter.  So, what to do about that?

That anyone would be offended when Sandra is rightfully called a slut shows how much we have devolved as Americans.  Would anyone have sat before congress fifty years ago and cried to its members about how unfair it is that with contraception being so expensive, having sex has become a luxury few can afford?  Of course not.  And although there were women of ill repute back then, they at least had sense enough not to air their dirty laundry to members of congress.

Sandra is no role model – or is she?  Would you want your daughter to emulate Sandra?  Would you hope your son would fall in love with a Sandra Fluke?  Just how many sexual encounters, and with how many partners, does Sandra desire to be with before she gets married?  Well, if we have to pay for her contraception, we have a right to know all the details, don’t we?

You might be asking, what was Sandra even doing at this hearing?  This was a hearing, after-all, on Obama’s contraception mandate – a law that would force Catholic and religious institutions to provide birth control, contraception, and pregnancy ended services against their moral and religious values and convictions.  Sandra was denied a seat in an earlier hearing.  This was then a make-up, for Sandra.  So – should religious institutions be forced to pay for contraception because some of its students are hornier than others, and their extra-curricular activities are draining their wallets?

Sandra is making a mess of “women’s rights”, and she probably doesn’t even know it.  Her arrogance, her condescending attitude showed America that liberal feminists are weak, pathetic and small-minded; the lack of anything remotely intelligent in her argument showed America that liberal feminists are not smart enough to debate, and when they do they revert back into playing the victim card.  In other words, it’s not Sandra’s fault she can’t afford the cost of contraception – it’s the high cost of college tuition which is draining her bank account.  If only the “evil” Republicans would give her more grant money for college, and if only “evil” Republicans would give her money for contraception, she could afford the high tuition costs and have all the sex she wanted.  But because Republican lawmakers, who are predominately male, hate Sandra because she is a woman, Sandra is therefore forced to succumb to the terrible burden of either having to pay for her own contraception, or to give up some of the sex she thought she had a Constitutional right to have, and to have the taxpayer pay for.

This is how liberal feminists think.  They had it real easy in the 90’s under Bill Clinton.  Since then, their fantasy world has come crashing down upon them as waves and waves of new conservatives win in local, state and national elections across America, and begin to implement common sense legislation – like paying for ones own contraception and not demanding taxpayers pay for it, or forcing religious institutions into becoming pimps.

What else has changed, which may be a shock to Sandra, and all liberal feminists, is how much more difficult it is for them to simply shout “women’s rights”, or “women’s health” or “right to privacy” and have everyone fall into line behind them.  Because when they bring up such slogans, what they are really talking about is abortion and the killing of an unborn child – and America is wise to their shenanigans.  At least, wiser than say ten or fifteen years ago.

Liberal feminists are not talking about, not fighting for, contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.  Liberal feminists want the contraception which ends the pregnancy after it has resulted and a human being has been created.  There is a vast and fundamental difference between the two kinds of contraception, and it is for the latter liberal feminists are demanding taxpayers pay for, and religious institutions cover and provide services for against their religious convictions.  Nobody is trying to take away birth control or contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy.  But one would never know that listening to the MSM, or getting their news from HuffPost, Daily Kos, or any liberal media outlet which reports propaganda rather than facts.

As much of a flout and a floozy as Sandra is, Sandra Fluke was the best liberal feminists could do.  If all she could come up with as to why the contraception mandate is a good thing, and why it ought to remain law, is so she can engage in as much free sex as she wants, and not have to pay a penny for it, or for the abortions – what does that tell you about the state of liberal feminism in 2012?

Terry O’Neill, NOW President, Wants Your Baby To Die!

Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization Of Women, (referred lovingly by Rush Limbaugh as the NAGS), lost in her own translation, and having abandoned all sense of reason, is trying desperately to paint conservatives as anti-woman and anti- women’s “health”.  While this is a lie, and an absurd one at that, what is not a lie is that Terry O’Neill, and other liberal pro-abortion feminists, are doing everything they can to undermine a woman right to knowledge and education, particularly in the case of pregnancy and abortion, and how much information women are provided about their unborn baby.

Terry and her ilk don’t want women informed at all about what is going on inside their own bodies, which is why she, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and all her pro-abortion liberal feminists and allies are up in arms over any law that would delay a woman from seeking an abortion.  Ultrasounds are the new battle, which Terry describes as “violating a woman’s body and rights”.  It’s yet another pathetic and disgraceful attempt by pro-abortion supporters to remove any necessary and imperative obstacles from a woman who is seeking to end a pregnancy out of emotional turmoil rather than because there is any real medical or health threat to her life.

Writes Terry:

“For decades, the radical right has been chipping away at women’s access to reproductive health care.”

Translation:  The “radical” Right has been chipping away at access to abortion on demand as a means of birth control, and using abortion, which is the killing of an unborn child, for purposes other than to save the life of the mother.

“After the 2010 elections, these attacks escalated into an outright War on Women.”

Translation:  These so-called “attacks”, which are indeed a “war” were never about or against women.  Rather these “wars” are all about ensuring women have the right to know everything about their pregnancy and their unborn child, including the fact that their unborn child is actually a living human being.  Ultrasounds prove that by snapping a picture of the fetus, which is clearly identifiable, any women looking at it can clearly discern a human being in that picture.  Terry knows a fetus is in fact a living human being,  But she would rather women still have the right to kill it, and she is worried to death that if a woman who is contemplating an abortion is shown an image of her actual child inside her womb, that woman will change her mind about having the abortion.  Stuff like that scares Terry, all liberal pro-abortion feminists, and pro-culture of death liberals, to death.

“Now, the Republican presidential primaries are offering a disturbing glimpse into the supposed conservative vision for this country. In this right-wing utopia, women will no longer be able to exercise the right to control their bodies, plan their families or safeguard their own health.”

Translation:  The “utopia” we envision is one in which women have been provided the right information and education, which is currently being denied them at Planned Parenthood, to make an informed decision about abortion, what abortion really is – the killing of an unborn child – and to come to the realization, on her own, that having an abortion for emotional reasons is not the best response for her or her baby.  Our “utopia” absolutely includes safeguards, put in place to protect unborn life from being wantonly, maliciously and intentionally destroyed.  The unborn obviously do not have a voice of their own.  We, who are pro-life, need to be their voice and speak on their behalf.  Conservatives are not interested in “controlling women’s bodies”.  We are interested in ensuring that the unborn child, which is also a “body” has protection and rights too, namely the right to live.

“The church and the state will tell women what is best for them, and religious entities’ “liberty” will consistently trump individual women’s right to live and work free from discrimination and in accordance with their own religious and moral beliefs.”

Translation:  Terry wants the government to force religious institutions to provide medication and services it finds morally objectionable.  That is what Obama’s contraception mandate is all about and why you are hearing about it constantly on the news.  The church is not trying to tell “women what is best for them”.  Any church certainly tells its own constituents what is best for them, according to their own doctrines and beliefs, which each member voluntary accepts as part of belonging to that particular church.  It is Terry, Barack Obama and the democrat Party – not the church – which is attempting to force itself and its will on the American people.

“Much of the current he-man chest thumping is done for the benefit of voters who might be swayed to cast their ballots for the GOP based largely on social issues. And, as demonstrated in Virginia this week, conservative politicians are perfectly capable of putting on the brakes when proceeding with a piece of their anti-woman agenda appears to be backfiring.”

Translation:  Not only is there plenty of “He-man thumping” going in, there is plenty of “She-woman” thumping going on as well.  Terry still doesn’t understand that there are tens of millions of women who are pro-life.  Terry still believes, erroneously, that abortion is a woman’s right issue; that access to abortion somehow empowers women and creates equality among the sexes.  The only thing abortion, and access to abortion, does is kills an unborn child.  That is abortion’s only purpose.  That some politicians, including Republicans, have caved is an indication of their own political cowardice, and is more evidence they, as in the case of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, are more concerned with saving their own worthless political life than unborn life.

“Still, the right-wing commitment to keeping women in check is surprisingly strong and reveals a frightening disrespect, even contempt for women who aren’t sufficiently submissive.”

Translation:  Our “commitment” to the unborn, their right to live and protecting them from harm, is the only thing we, pro-life conservatives, are trying to “keep in check”.  What can be so “frightening” about that?  And what can be so “contemptible” about that?  Here, again, Terry views abortion as women’s empowerment; that taking the right to abortion away from women somehow diminishes their role in society and makes them that much more “submissive”.  This is another area, for which liberal feminist, anti-male, Terry O’Neill just doesn’t understand, or want to understand.  To conservatives, being “submissive” is a two-way street, which includes men, and husbands, being just as equally “submissive” to women, and their wives, as women, and wives, need to be to men, and their husbands.  That is equality.  What Terry wants is superiority, and for women to be superior, to have special rights which includes the right to kill an unborn child.

“Turning the clock back includes shaming women for their sexuality and punishing them for terminating a pregnancy (which is still legal, by the way). This brings us to one of the more degrading tactics up the radical-right sleeve: mandatory ultrasound laws.”

Translation:  Our goal, as pro-life conservatives, is indeed to “turn back the clock” to a time when abortion was virtually never a consideration used to end a pregnancy.  Whether “punishing” a woman for “terminating her pregnancy” – killing her unborn child – is a punishable offense in some places has nothing whatsoever to do with “shaming women for their sexuality”.  Whatever “shame” was involved in the past, and past dealings with regards to unintended, unplanned pregnancies, when a woman or girl became pregnant, and was not married, no longer exists in America today and is not longer a plausible scenario.  Women, including conservative and pro-life women, have no intention of reverting back to the days of old and “shaming” women and girls by sending them to see an “aunt in Boston” or to a convent, a shabby, run-down women’s shelter or throwing them out of their house, or in prison, or whatever other horror stories Terry O’Neill is irrationally worried will happen.  That part of America is passed.  We, pro-life conservatives, have evolved.  It is Terry who is still living in the past.

“Under these laws, before a woman can undergo an abortion procedure, a doctor must perform an ultrasound and offer the woman an opportunity to view the image of the fetus or hear a detailed description.”

Translation:  Well, since this is exactly the intent of the laws being proposed, no translation needed.  Why is Terry so fearful and terrified of ultrasounds?  A woman viewing an image of her unborn child could very well become teary eyed, have a change of heart and stop the abortion from occurring.  What other reason is there for opposing an ultrasound?  It’s invasive?  Absolute BS.  How invasive is the actual abortion itself?  And if a woman is willing to undergo an invasive procedure to kill her unborn child, why the hell would she be unwilling to undergo a so-called  “invasive” procedure to snap a picture of the unborn child she is about to kill?

“As ultrasounds are rarely medically necessary prior to an abortion, these laws exist to demean the woman and make the procedure more expensive to boot. Ultrasound costs range from $300 to $700, and the woman, of course, is typically expected to pay for this state-mandated exam.”

Translation:  Of course ultrasounds are not “medically necessary”.  But they are nonetheless imperative.  They do not “exist to demean women”, but to educate and inform women to the fact there is an unborn child in their womb, not a blob of tissue or collection of cells.  Terry is not worried about the cost of the ultrasound because of its expense.  The cost of the abortion itself is roughly the same cost as an ultrasound.  What Terry is worried about is the profit lost from the abortion.  A woman shown an image of the child, just moments away from execution, may very well opt to save her child from permanent destruction.  If that happens, Planned Parenthood and the abortionist don’t make any money.  On the other hand, think of the millions of dollars Planned Parenthood could reap and profit from, from the ultrasounds themselves!  There’s an angle even pro-abortion supporters never thought of.

“But the most disturbing aspect of these laws is that in the vast majority of abortions, which occur far too early in pregnancy for an external (“jelly on the belly”) ultrasound to produce an image, the ultrasound must be transvaginal — i.e., a long wand-like ultrasound probe must be inserted deep into the woman’s vagina. This is, quite simply, state-sponsored rape. Even the FBI recognized last year, as most states did long ago, that vaginal penetration without a woman’s consent is rape.”

Translation: Terry fears “a long wand-like ultrasound probe” being “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina”.  And she calls that not just “rape”, but “state sponsored rape”.  Hmm.  How exactly is the actual abortion performed?  Is nothing similar to a “wand-like” instrument “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina” to extricate the unborn child?  In other words, whether it is an instrument to take a picture of an unborn child, or an instrument to remove and kill it, there is some type of instrument being “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina”.  In that event, we either have “state sponsored rape”, (which is in itself an over-reaction) or we have state sponsored killing of an unborn child.  Which is the lessor of two evils?

Terry O’Neill is acting through emotions, rather than through reality or rationality.  So are all liberal pro-abortion feminists, and all liberals who support abortion.  The point of having an ultrasound is to empower women, to provide a woman seeking an abortion with as much information as she can have to make an informed decision.  Terry O’Neil, although she says she is pro-women’s rights, nonetheless would rather women be left in the dark, forbidden important knowledge, restricted from access to real health information, and “shamed” for wanting to know as much about her pregnancy and her unborn child as she can know.

Terry O’Neill is the real rapist here.  Terry is raping all women of valuable and critical information pertaining to their pregnancies.  Terry is the one “inserting” her “long wand-like probe” into women – not into their vaginas, but into their brains and their minds, and with that probe Terry is sucking out every bit, and every last vestige of, woman-hood and what it means to be a woman, changing women into pro-abortion feminist robots that are easy to control and manipulate and easy for her, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and her NOW group to force into their “submission”.

For all women who want to retain their true independence, want true empowerment, want true equality, want to control their own bodies –  choose the pro-life side.  Men who are pro-abortion have little respect for women, and women who are pro-abortion have little respect for themselves.  Conversely, men who are pro-life have enough respect for women, and more respect for women than men who are pro-abortion, to keep their hands off women and to keep themselves restrained.  And women who are pro-life will be less sexually active before marriage than women who are pro-abortion, because women who are pro-life, who are empowered with knowledge, will understand that the more often they have sex, regardless of how “safe” it is, there is always the possibility of becoming pregnant.

In other words, if women want men to be more submissive, if women really want to be more dominant – take back, and take control of, your sexuality.  Don’t spread it around and cheapen it and yourself.  Men love “easy” women.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean they love women.

How is Terry O’Neill, President of NOW, helping women by cheapening and degrading them, their sexuality, for the sole discretion and delight of men?  What is “pro-woman” about that?

How The Left Repeatedly Rapes Women/Girls – And Why Leftist Women Love It

How many times a day do we hear how “rabid” and “extremist” conservatives are with regards to women, “women’s rights”, sexuality and “reproductive rights” and sex education vs. abstinence education?  The Left is even more “rabid” and more “extremist” when it comes to fighting for, and promoting, these concepts.  And is is all the more reason we, as conservatives, need to be more vigilant, more supportive of the social issues, even, and especially, in political campaigns, and why we ought to reject the both the Left’s assertion that social issues are not issues politicians should be meddling in (in particular from a religion stance) and that block of conservatives themselves who fear social issues will not win conservative politicians the necessary seats in congress to keep the House, take back the Senate and reclaim the White House.

The Left is relentless in its attack on conservatives (including conservative women) for having values which are consistently pro-life, pro-American and even pro-woman.  The Left cannot abide the fact that after forty plus years of “sexual revolution” and “sexual liberation” there are still tens of millions of Americans ( including women) who renounce, reject and revolt against them and their liberal/socialist agenda of raping women/girls of both their virginity at very young ages and their minds – which the Left ever is seeking to control.  And women/girls are being raped by the Left, which includes liberal, pro-abortion feminists, the MSM, the Democrat Party, the ACLU, the Arianna Nation (HuffPost) and a host of groups, organizations and activists who are committed to the destruction of American values and morals and will use whatever methods they can to ensure they are destroyed and stay destroyed.  But, how do they do it?

Just take a look at virtually any given story, on any given day, in the “Women” section at the Arianna Nation, for example.  Stories like, Why Sleeping With 75 Men Didn’t Make Me Promiscuous, Is It Time To Retire The Word ‘Wife’?, There Were How Few Women At The Contraception Rule Hearings?,Helen Gurley Brown Turns 90 — And Has A Few Words For You – these are just a few of the “Women’s” stories that rotate daily on the Arianna Nation that are intended to pass for “inspirational”, “inspiring”, “uplifting” and “progressive” reading.

The problem?  They all center around the belief that women have been so mistreated by men, and male dominated societies for hundreds, thousands of years, now it is time for them, women, to experience “freedom” and “liberation” for themselves, at the expense of giving up their most powerful weapon, their greatest source of strength, lowering their self-worth and relegating themselves as no better than the men they purportedly hate and despise by engaging in the exact same behavior they hate and despise men for.  But those “backward” and “religious extremist” conservatives (living in the time of yore) just keep getting in the way.

Yes, we, as conservatives, have a very real problem with women sleeping with men (and men sleeping with women for that matter) and the messages that sends to our young American boys and girls who are being educated to believe that sleeping around with various partners is not dangerous, promiscuous behavior.  The indoctrination they receive is a form of mind rape, and when they actually give in to temptation (because there are no responsible adults holding them back) they are being raped of their virginity and self-worth.

The Left, which hates family, despises marriage, loathes women who choose to stay at home to raise their children and is intolerable towards all men and women who choose to remain celibate and virgins until after they are married, heavily promotes and encourages abortion rights, the use of contraception and “safe” sex education to counter a culture and a society of people who do love family, love marriage, and love women, and respect women enough to not sully them by taking away their virginity – which does empower women in ways that, once her virginity is gone, her sexuality no longer has the same charismatic strength and charm it once possessed.

Women and girls are being educated to believe that “equality” means, and includes, the right of women and girls to partake in free, open sex, the same as men and boys do; that “equality” means, and includes, that because a man cannot get pregnant, a right to end an unwanted, unintended pregnancy must be available to women to even the playing field.

Conversely, these same women and girls are being educated to believe that remaining a virgin until married, or at least going through with a pregnancy which was unintended (rather than having the abortion) is akin to a religious philosophy of subservience to men and to a male dominated society.  If any of this is true, men themselves ought to be more courageous and step up to defend women who reject liberal feminism, reject the sexual “liberation” movement – and reject killing an unborn child who is the victim of an unintended pregnancy.  Men also ought to be more chivalrous when it comes to women by supporting them and their position to remain virgin until married.  The best way men can do that is to remain virgins themselves.  That is real equality among the sexes.

Women who call themselves feminists, and subscribe to liberalism and Leftism, do so primarily because they are driven by their hatred of men and the fact that men can have all the sex they want and never get pregnant.  Also because men, for so long, have held real power over them and their lives.  Most of that, in America, has been, by now, rectified and amended.  Women, in America, are just as equal to men, as men are to women – under the U.S. Constitution.

Of course men still cannot get pregnant, and that biological fact still infuriates liberal feminists to no end.  And women still do not possess the same physical strength and endurance as do men, which is why they have no place, and no business, being put in military combat roles where they not only endanger themselves, but their units as well, along with their missions and operations.  And that is why they (liberal feminists) are so vocal when it comes to abortion rights, access (the freer access the better) to contraception and why they demand so-called equal rights protections and special rights and privileges be guaranteed to them.

And that is why they (liberal feminists) love being raped, and why they love raping new generations of young girls.  This form of rape, which is a fantasy to them, feels good and is liberating, soothing and intoxicating.  And it is also why they look upon conservative women with spite and a vindictiveness unparalleled to the men they despise.  Such conservative women are traitors in their eyes.  Which is why they so vilify Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and other conservative women – and why, when Leftist men satirize, dehumanize and degrade conservative women, liberal feminists never cry “sexism”.

The best way for conservative men and women to counter this madness is to join together, equally, to renounce Leftist, liberal ideology.  The more men and women that do this, the more the ideology of liberal feminism will be shuttered and confined to the kook-house of their creating where it will, having nowhere to spread, will self-combust and implode on itself, dying the death it deserves.

For the sake of America, and for the sake of America’s youth, and future generations – let’s get these liberal feminists to that nunnery!

Nancy Pelosi: The Iron-ing Lady

Well, it didn’t take long for Nancy Pelosi to take her foot out of her mouth and say something else incredibly stupid (and dangerous) about contraception, the Catholic Church and religious conscience exemptions.  And it proves that if there is a wrinkle in any socialist driven bill, no matter how nasty or stubborn a wrinkle it is, or unconstitutional, Nancy Pelosi will be there to iron it out.

The issue of self insured institutions was the spotlight of controversy on Thursday, and in particular, self insured religious institutions.  The Obama Administration had earlier reached a “compromise” with regards to forcing religious institutions to provide contraception, including abortifacients.  The compromise?  Putting the onus of paying for the contraception on insurance companies instead of religious institutions.  However, a snag developed which was brought to the attention of the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi.  Some insurance providers are themselves religious institutions.  Now what?

Said Pelosi:

“Yes, I think that all institutions who cover, who give, health insurance should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women.”

In other words, that “compromise” is as meaningless as it is a sham.  Democrats have been both insistence and unabashedly vocal about forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception (including pregnancy ending pills and medication) against their religious and moral convictions.  This push for more access, and “free” access, comes under the disguise of “women’s health” to safeguard the “reproductive rights” of all women.  In fact, it is being done at the behest of, and merely to please and pleasure, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations and keep them in business with taxpayer dollars.

Pelosi’s anti-Catholic rhetoric is long-standing.

The Democrats have, from the beginning, demanded more access to contraception and birth control for women.  But how to get around the cost factor was always the main issue, the big “wrinkle” in the fabric of this monstrous agenda.  Obama’s contraception mandate is the icing on the “reproductive rights” cake.  Not only does this mandate provide women with that access, but “free” contraception paid for by insurance companies, which will have that passed down to us, the taxpayers through higher premiums, loss of benefits, etc, and whatever cost the government picks up.

The “slight hitch” in the mandate is what the Iron-ing Lady is trying to smooth over.  Not so much with Catholic and religious institutions – she has already burnt a hole clear through in that endeavor.  But with her pro-abortion friends who have long been fighting to get more money from government for their struggling and floundering abortion business, and who are worried about any “conscience clause”, any opt out for religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, that might make it more difficult for them in their pro-abortion agenda.

The contraception mandate, for now, seems to be their golden ticket.  However, Catholic Bishops, Catholics themselves, and Americans of every religious and conservative, and moral persuasion, are gearing up for a fight to counter what is, and has become, an attack on the constitution itself and the constitutional right of religious freedom.  Undoubtedly this fight will find its way to the U.S Supreme Court where it, depending on who the nine Justices are when the case comes before them – which may very well depend on who our next President will be – will be settled.

In-between that time, the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, will continue her attempt to smooth over any and all wrinkles in this, and any, future socialist driven agendas.  However, the more she must “smooth over” the wrinkles, the more she inadvertently is wearing down the fabric of the agenda she is trying to iron out.  The good news for us – conservatives – is that because Democrats always produce and manufacture cheap and shoddy legislation, there will always be wrinkles for our Iron-ing Lady to smooth out.

This contraception mandate, and how to both force religious institutions, and exempt them, at the same time, from having to provide services they find morally objectionable, will be one tough wrinkle for the Iron-ing Lady to smooth over and may well prove to be too exhausting for her in the long run.

Perhaps Pelosi ought to just leave the iron burning on the mandate, let it burn a hole through and try to mend the hole she has already made with the Catholic Church.   Or – perhaps she ought to just put her foot back in her mouth and keep it there.

Donna Brazile, A “Strategist”, Equates The Killing Of Unborn Children With McCarthyism

Donna Brazile would make a lousy chess player, or a player in any game of strategy.  (She is a Democrat strategist by they way)  Brazile has just positioned herself as a pawn in the game of abortion rights, defending her queen, Planned Parenthood, against those “right-wing aggressors set to remake everything in America in their own image”.  It was a sacrificial move on Brazile’s part.

In her quest to demonize conservatives, Brazile has invoked McCarthyism, and uses it to compare what Joseph McCarthy did to American citizens accused of being communist sympathizers back in the 1950’s to what “right-wing aggressors” are doing to Planned Parenthood and “women’s health” in 2012.  McCarthyism was described as a witch hunt.  Is it a witch hunt “right-wing aggressors” are conducting against Planned Parenthood and abortion rights?  Well, liberals feminists have been described as witches, haven’t they?

Brazile says:

“Like McCarthy himself, they [those “right-wing aggressors”] often pick targets unprepared to defend themselves.”

Hmm.  Now translate “right-wing aggressors often pick targets unprepared to defend themselves” and transfer her statement onto a chess board and into a “move” – what would be her opponent’s response to that?  Would her opponent crush her right then and there, or would he/she toy with her for a while?

First of all, whom is Brazile referring “right-wing aggressors” are targeting?  Planned Parenthood itself?  Or the women who would use Planned Parenthood to obtain an abortion?  Or both?  Secondly, it’s a stupid and a brash move on Brazile’s part to compare “right-wing aggression” against Planned Parenthood, and abortion, with anything that was “McCarthyism” or connected with Senator Joseph McCarthy.

McCarthyism, albeit over played and over-dramatized, involved uncovering and identifying American traitors and conspirators who had embraced communism and were helping Russia to weaken America from within.  It was a scandalous affair which ruined the lives and professional careers of a number of Hollywood actors, directors and other affiliates, journalists, and others, many of whom either were not communists to begin with, or had been but renounced the ideology years earlier.

Thirdly, does Brazile ( a presumed strategist) really want to use language like “targets unprepared to defend themselves”?  What an absolute abysmal failure Brazile is as a strategist, and especially to use that as her opening “move”.

“Like McCarthy himself, in the name of defending American principles, they [“right-wing aggressors”] seek to bring down patriotic Americans and important American institutions.”

What “patriotic Americans” and what “important American institutions” is Brazile talking about?  Is Planned Parenthood really an important American institution”?  Does being a pro-abortion supporter, and an advocate for killing unborn children, make one a “patriotic American”?  What the hell kind of strategy is Brazile using to win her game?

“And like McCarthyism itself, they [“right-wing aggressors”] will continue to succeed in poisoning our civic culture until America’s broad mainstream is willing to help our institutions stand up to these attacks, even if taking a side invites controversy.”

How does taking a pro-life position “poison our civic culture”?  It is in fact Brazile’s poisonous pro-abortion position, along with Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and all liberal feminists who are “poisoning our civic culture” with their anti-life agenda.  Brazile is the one “willing to help institutions” which would provide women with abortions and baby killing inducing drugs.  “America’s broad mainstream” is in fact pro-life, not pro-abortion.  And Brazile “invite controversy” by demanding American taxpayers be forced to pay the cost of “free” contraception to all women.  Brazile “invites controversy” by demanding all Catholic and religious hospitals be forced to provide contraception against their moral and religious convictions.

“The effort to withdraw funding for Planned Parenthood [from Komen for the cure] that came to light in the last few weeks was just the latest symptom of this problem. Attacks on reproductive health care are nothing new, of course.”

Ah, the pieces on the board are moving as Brazile keeps making irrational choices with her pieces.  But the chess master continues to toy with her; lets her fall further into his/her trap for the sheer amusement of watching her make a fool of herself.  So Komen acted under pressure by “right-wing aggressors” in its decision to defund its grants to Planned Parenthood? (Which it since rescinded).  “Right-wing aggressors” are witch hunters and McCarthyists for going after Planned Parenthood, for standing up for human life and the value of human life against the real “aggressors” who would not only demand a “right to privacy” in killing an unborn child, but would also demand the American taxpayer flip the bill for the contraception and the abortion which kills the unborn children?

“Support for that basic health care used to be a bipartisan issue, and Republicans from Richard Nixon to Sen. Prescott Bush (father and grandfather to presidents) were staunch supporters. But for years, a concerted minority that is concentrated in—but not limited to—the Republican Party has made it their mission to politicize the issue at all costs.”

The fact that that support, which Republicans used to have for abortion, has dwindled proves that America has become much more pro-life than pro-abortion in the past forty years.  Because it is much easier to show the consequences of abortion, to show women seeking abortion there is indeed a human being inside of her, using sonograms – not a blob of tissue or collection of cells – more Americans now have a better understanding of abortion and when human life begins.  More Americans, because they are not the rabid pro-abortion advocates Brazile is, have shunned and abandoned the abortion rights agenda.  Brazile’s strategy is outdated.  Brazile herself is outdated.  Her moves are easy to calculate.  She has no tricks up her sleeve which cannot be countered, met and checked.

If you were to play a game of chess with Brazile, and she were to use a similar strategy as she uses to defend Planned Parenthood and abortion rights by comparing conservatives and Republicans, “right-wing aggressors”, with McCarthyism, would you play the game with her?  Would you crush her right away, or toy with her for a while?

Knowing what a pathetic strategist Brazile has shown herself to be, if you were running for political office, would you hire Donna Brazile for your “strategist’?

98% Of Catholics Can’t Be Wrong – Or Can They?

The 98% of Catholics that NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations tout, and which the lame MSM goes along with without fact checking is in reference to those Catholics which support a woman’s right to obtain and use birth control – the kind that prevent a pregnancy from occurring, not any of the kinds that kill the baby after conception.  Most Americans, and probably at least equal to the Catholic percentage of 98%. agree that women ought to have the right to use birth control.  However, if you want it, you ought to pay for it yourself.

What will never happen is a majority of Catholics, and certainly one as large as 98%, supporting the Obama Administration’s push to force Catholic hospitals to provide birth control, contraception and abortion to its patients against their moral and religious convictions.  This is very much a war, and one of Obama’s making.  He had help, of course, from the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and other radical feminist women’s groups.  But a war, nonetheless, and one that must be fought to whatever end.

Obama has gone too far this time, in order to appease his block of extremist left-wing supporters.  A heavy gamble, as most Americans are more pro-life than pro-abortion, and more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal.  But Obama has the court system in his pocket, until Republicans can win more victories and oust any and all judicial activists who would seek to undermine the American Constitution.

Catholics are already gearing up for a fight, a viscous uphill battle all the way to the Supreme Court.  The stakes are huge.  If Obama wins, and Catholic hospitals are forced to provide services they find morally objectionable, they will no longer be protected under the first amendment and government can both disrespect an establishment of religion and make laws which impede the free exercise of religion.  Something which has never happened in our country.  If a Catholic hospital is forced to do what it considers evil, it may very well shut down altogether.  Then where will people go?

All this nonsense in response to what is essentially a minority of women in America who demand not only the right to abortion and to contraception, but demand the taxpayer fund and pay for it, and the government sanction it, and force hospitals to go along with it or else.

Indeed, there will be a war the likes of which hasn’t been seen since 1860.  Long have there been those Americans who have felt abortion would be America’s next great Civil War.  If Obama. and Planned Parenthood, have their way, there may very well be some type of revolt or rebellion in this country.  Does Obama, do Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the MSM really think conservatives, religious or otherwise, are just going to bow down and accept this type of drastic government intervention and intrusion?  There is that “final straw” thing to think about and that “enough is enough” concept.

If you thought the Occupy Wall Street crowd was bad – and they were – you ain’t seen nothing yet.  If you thought a few, insignificant, miniscule group of ignorant, uneducated, unintellectual mama’s boys and girls could cause trouble – wait until you get a load of us.  We’re here, we’re sincere, and we’re not gonna take it anymore.  You can only push us so far.  We won’t stand by idly and watch our Constitutional rights be stripped from us without a fight.  Did you think we would?

Planned Parenthood fights for the right of all women to kill their unborn children.  We fight for the rights of those unborn children, and the rights of Americans not to be placed in a moral dilemma which forces them either to commit an act of evil, against their will, or stop caring for all the people in their community altogether.

Of course there will be some sort of clash.  Something, and someone, has to give.  Did anyone, in 1860, expect to see America torn apart as it was?  Abortion is one of those issues that can tear apart those seams once again.  Is giving into Obama and Planned Parenthood really worth tearing apart those seams?  Is caving into the radical feminist and pro-abortion agenda worth tearing America apart, again?  What would such a war even look like?

For now, all that is neither here or there.  The first thing to happen would be either Catholic hospitals shutting their doors, or becoming completely private, relying on donations and charitable contributions.  How does that help the surrounding community?  If these hospitals do shut down, and people are turned away, denied services, refused entrance, etc., it will be because of Barack Obama and his inability to show the least amount of courage and common sense.  How many people will suffer needlessly because Planned Parenthood goes around acting like a spoiled little brat, always wanting more, more, more.

What is it worth to you, to have the right to kill your unborn child?  What is it worth to us, who oppose abortion, to ensure this practice is once again outlawed?  If women want birth control and contraception, and to have sex with as little fear of becoming pregnant as possible, they can pay for it themselves.  Leave the Catholic and religious hospitals out of it.  Money doesn’t grow on trees, neither do taxpayers.

Abolishing “Women’s Rights” A Top Priority

From the Arianna Nation:

Inspired by the backlash over the brief attempt by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, a group of senators Wednesday is launching a bid to organize 1 million people in support of women’s rights.  Led by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), seven Democratic senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are appealing to backers on all of their websites to sign on to “One Million Strong For Women” in hopes of harnessing the energy displayed in the backlash against Komen.

What rights do women actually lack, which, without having them, they, women, will forever remain the lessor of the two sexes?

When women talk about tight, uncomfortable fitting iron shackles, constricting belts, heavy locks, weighty chains clanking with the rhythm of a woman’s heartbeat and synchronized to her every breath – and of course the nightmarish visions of metal coat hangers; mind and body beaten down and ransacked, vandalized, disrespected, abused, tortured and repeatedly raped with no recourse, no respite and no remuneration, what are they really talking about?

If anything has been learned from the women’s movement (the radical feminist and liberal one) over the past forty or fifty years, it is that the more these women complain about how “unequal”, how “inferior” they are to men, how “unfairly” they have been treated by the “male dominated” society, the more actual harm these women cause to the real women’s rights fight.  When they talk about “women’s rights”, they are really talking about a few specific issues which only a minority of women really only find worth fighting for.  The “women’s rights” these women are concerned with, ironically, are opposed by more women than accepted.

Under the guise of “women’s rights”, make no mistake about what is really being demanded:

The “right” to privately kill their unborn child – and they want us to pay for it.

  The “right” to access free birth control, free contraception and free health care – and they want us to pay for that too.

The “right” to be paid for work not done while on maternity leave; not to be fired or replaced while at home on maternity leave; not to have their pay reduced or in any way compromised while they are away; to return to her job after many years and to be paid the same as the man who has worked those same years she was away.

•  The “right” to divert money away from successful sports programs enjoyed by millions and put into all-girl sports programs virtually no one has any real interest in.

•  The “right” to have included in college courses “women’s studies”, “feminist studies” and other courses geared specifically towards women and the women’s movement (the liberal feminist one) which paint an anti-male, anti-American, anti-woman historic worldview in the minds of impressionable young girls – paid for through government grants with money confiscated via our taxes.  In other words, women’s study courses designed to create even more anti-male liberal feminists, and paid for by us.

These are the “women’s rights” they say they must have, and have protected by the Constitution.  The “women’s rights” liberal feminists are, and have been, fighting for are as pathetic a joke as anything Barack Obama or Joe Biden have ever come up with.  The “women’s rights” they demand has no basis in reality or logic.  The “women’s rights” they say must be agreed to and accepted, and Constitutionally protected, are more anti-woman, more alienating, more divisive and certainly more inhumane and immoral, than anything else.  The “women’s rights” they say all women cannot do without have more of an overall negative impact on all women than positive.

These are the “women’s rights” that must be abolished.  And this is a top priority.

Julianne Moore: Hollywood Leftist, Liberal And Anti-Choice

Julianne Moore (the actress) wants women to know she “is watching“.  In particular this upcoming 2012 election, and the candidates positions on “women rights” – birth control in particular, but abortion to be clear.  She is another one of these Hollywood, liberal, leftists who, although she opposes government involvement and intrusions in her life, and that of women seeking birth control and abortion, and other “reproductive rights”, she seems perfectly at ease with the government telling the rest of us that we can mind our own business when it comes to it (government) taking our taxes – our money – and using that money – our money – to provide “free” birth control and other “necessities” to women.  In other words, from our prospective, the pro-life and conservative one, Julianne Moore is anti-choice, as she would seek to deny us our choice not to fund her, and other women’s, irresponsible “health” decisions.

Leftists, like Julianna, despise government intrusion, except when that intrusion provides them with something, like free contraception, free abortions, free health care, free education, free housing, free clothing, free government grants to create repulsive and despicable pieces of art and literature, free anything and everything at taxpayer – our – expense.

She writes:

“It’s hard to believe that in 2012 birth control is being threatened, and that there are candidates who think the U.S. Supreme Court victory from 1965, giving married couples the right to use birth control, should be overturned.”

Who wants to “overturn” birth control?  In other words, there is a difference, which Julianna apparently does not understand, in a woman paying for the birth control herself, or having it given to her through a private donation, and the government handing her either low-cost or free birth control pills  at taxpayer – our – expense.  Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion (but mostly if one is pro-life) most of us do not want our money, which we earned and then had confiscated by the government, going into programs, funding, purchases, etc. which we find to be repugnant.  That is not the purpose or responsibility of government.  Julianna Moore, another liberal leftist simply either does not care or does not understand that.

Julianne moans:

“And there are some candidates supporting “personhood” policies that could make birth control illegal for all women.”

Birth control which prevents a pregnancy is not the issue.  What is at issue is that birth control which ends a pregnancy already begun and in progress.  And certainly any private hospital ought to be exempt from providing any services it finds morally objectionable.  And while a public hospital, because it is taxpayer-funded, cannot do the same, its staff ought not be forced to make decisions contrary to their moral and religious beliefs.  Go to any public hospital and see whether all its staff would turn away a woman looking for medical attention.

Julianne Moore wants the government to keep its “hands” of her body, but wants to the government to force its hand upon Catholic hospitals and its staff to provide “free” birth control and other contraception to women against its moral and religious convictions.

Here is another liberal, leftist lie from Julianna:

“We all know that birth control is essential to women’s health. And access to affordable birth control is essential to keeping women healthy”

Birth control has little to no bearing on a woman’s “health”.  Birth control is exactly what it says it is and exactly focused on the one thing it says it does in its name – birth control.  That women want to be sexually active is their own business.  That they would want us, the taxpayer, to, in the end, pay for their irresponsibility, is our business, specifically because they want us to pay for their mistakes so that they may continue their sexual “liberation” ideology.

Julianne tells a story about a girl from Chicago who had to “rely” on Planned Parenthood for low-cost birth control.

“Without Planned Parenthood, she wouldn’t have been able to afford the medications that kept her healthy enough to become the mother she is today.”

There is something altogether puzzling and suspicious about this story.  The girl, who she alleges suffers from endometriosis, for whatever reason could not be treated in a real hospital, but had to use Planned Parenthood.  Hospitals do not turn people away, even poor people.  If birth control, or whatever the ingredients are that go into making birth control, really helped control the damage, a hospital would have provided her with it, and probably also at low-cost.  Could it be that this girl was, or wanted to be sexually active and that is the reason the hospital turned her away, and why she had to resort to Planned Parenthood?

Says Julianna:

“So when politicians talk about eliminating Title X, the nation’s family planning program, they are talking about taking away affordable birth control from than five million women and men in this country.  And when they say they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act — they are talking about taking away one of the most significant advances for women’s health in a generation — birth control without co-pays.”

Again, the only thing that politicians are, or should be, talking about is whether or not taxpayers are the ones who will be stiffed with the bill.  If there is no co-pay, who pays for the birth control?  Isn’t that answer obvious?  If women want affordable birth control – and that birth control which prevent the pregnancy before it occurs – they can either pay for it themselves, or look for a charitable organization which, through private donations, will help them out.  It is not our responsibility, the taxpayers, to provide the necessary means for women who want to be sexually active to be so.

Women like Julianna Moore want “freedom of choice” but at the same time want those of us who oppose that “choice” to nonetheless pay for the “choices” they make.  It’s utter and absolute liberal nonsense.  Most conservatives don’t actually care if a woman is sexually active.  It’s none of our business, and we keep it that way.  However, once a sexually active woman starts demanding birth control and other “health” services at our expense – we do take issue with that.  Why is that unreasonable?

Julianne concludes:

“So, this year, in this election, I am committing to watching even more vigilantly. And making sure my friends, family, everyone understands what’s at stake.

What is “at stake” is whether or not government grows and expands, and interferes, in the lives and “choices” regarding those of us who oppose paying for birth control and other “women’s health concerns” which are totally irrelevant and unnecessary in the real world, expect to allow women to engage in activities that are harmful, dangerous, irresponsible, and which may result in her getting pregnant.

Women all always telling men to “keep it zipped up”.  Why can’t they do the same?  And if they can’t, we are we the ones that must pay, literally, for their “choice” to be sexually impulsive?  Woman up, Julianna, and take responsibility for your own actions.

Pro-Abortion Stance Must Include Killing Gays, Blacks And Girls In The Womb

Supporting abortion on demand, a “right to privacy” and being pro “choice” all encompass the concept that women, and girls, of any child-bearing age have, and ought to have, the right to end their pregnancies at any time during the nine months of fetal development.  Supporting this stance also means that if a woman finds out there is a good chance her child will be born gay, or if the child’s sex is determined to be a girl, or if the child’s race (its skin color) is not what the mother expected it to be and she chooses to end the pregnancy – that right to abortion is fully supported by pro-abortion advocates.  But, here’s the irony and the hypocrisy –  pro-abortion advocates would never openly advocate any of these types of abortions.

Planned Parenthood does not have billboards, pamphlets or any type of literature telling women it’s o.k. if they abort a child who will be born gay, a girl, or a skin color they find objectionable.  But Planned Parenthood will abort those babies if the mother tells them that is the reason why they want to end the pregnancy.  Hence the “right to privacy”.  Planned Parenthood certainly will not tell a woman she cannot have an abortion for any reason, which includes sexual orientation, sex and race.  It would be bad for their business.

Likewise – all those radical feminists who support abortion on demand.  Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill, Pat Schroeder, Pat Ireland, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, etc., etc. etc. ad nauseam, will not openly say they support a woman’s right to abortion if that abortion is to end the life of an unborn female child.  But they will still support a woman’s right to “choose” abortion for the purpose of sex selection.

How many pro-choice gays and lesbians would openly support a woman’s right to abortion if she found out her child would be born homosexual?

How about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, Van Jones, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Mosley Braun, etc., ad nauseam?  They all support a woman’s right to “choose”.  That also includes a woman’s right to choose to abort a baby whose skin color might to too uncomfortably dark.  But they would never openly admit that.

On the flip side of that – imagine a black woman going into a clinic for an abortion because her unborn child is too white.  It happens.  Talk about a “conflict of interest” where Planned Parenthood is concerned.

Ladies and gentleman – the pro-abortion side is advocating  a lie.   Namely, that an unborn child is not alive to begin with, until after it is born.  But also, that the unborn child is not a separate life within the woman, but a part of the woman herself, no different from her bones, muscles, tissue, cells, etc., and akin to a disease, virus, tumor or cancer.

There is tremendous hypocrisy on the pro-abortion side.  Where does that hypocrisy exist on the pro-life side?  We support banning abortion in all cases – except to save the life of the mother when and where her life is legitimately threatened by the pregnancy and there is no known operation or procedure to reverse the threat.  That means we who are pro-life do not want to see abortions occurring even if the child will be born gay, female or a skin color other than white.

So that, in turn, means the real threat to women, people of color, and gays and lesbians is on the pro-abortion side, not the pro-life side.  To be pro-abortion is to be pro-death.  To be pro-abortion is to support killing an unborn child who will be born gay; to support abortion when an unborn child will be born a girl; to support abortion when an unborn child will be born black, brown, or not white enough – or too white.

One column written has recently generated tremendous attention:  Pro-Life Women Are Watching Also, Cecile Richards.  In not one instance has there been a legitimate or provocative reason why abortion was/is necessary.

The pro-abortion side cannot have it both ways.  They cannot fully support abortion on demand if they feel uncomfortable openly supporting abortion in cases where the unborn child will be born gay, female, or a color they don’t appreciate.  Conversely, pro-abortion advocates cannot be “pro-choice” if they are uncomfortable, openly or in secret, opposing a woman having an abortion to get rid of a potential homosexual in the family, another girl or black baby.

If it is in fact a “woman’s choice” all pro-abortion advocates ought to revel and celebrate the fact that a woman has exercised that “choice” even to abort a gay child, a girl or black baby.  And while they do, the fact that they do so in secret, rather than openly, shows the blatant hypocrisy and insecurities of their cause.

On the other hand – we could offer legislation to ban abortion in the case of sex selection, sexual orientation and skin color.  What would pro-abortion advocates have to say about that?  And what they do have to say, and what they keep silent about, will speak volumes about them and their real intentions and motivations – the foundations of which are built entirely on a lie.

The pro-life side?  It’s based on the foundation that all life has value and worth, including that life which is yet unborn, even if it will be born gay, female or black.  Does that sound like a lie to you?

Pro-Life Women Are Watching Also, Cecile Richards

On the 39th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, women are indeed “watching” and they are angry as hell that the monstrous, evil practice that is abortion has not yet been overturned.  But if you were only to listen to radical feminist, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, you would get the impression that all women fully supported abortion, and fully support Roe vs. Wade.  What is Cecile Richards response to the fact that scores of millions of women in fact oppose abortion and are working hard to overturn Roe vs. Wade?  Answer?  Repugnant, indignant silence.

Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, liberal feminists all make it sound as if abortion is a fundamental and imperative “woman’s right” issue, and that without it women are inferior and less equal to men and/or second class citizens in America.  That, if Roe vs. Wade was ever to be overturned, women would somehow loss something of value, some piece of their identity, some inherent and innate freedom and right.  But the only thing that is “lost” when Roe vs. Wade is overturned is a woman’s right to kill her unborn child.  That is, and has been, the defining issue for the past 39 years.  Every time a woman has an abortion she is in actuality killing her unborn child, whether she is aware she is or not.

There is no reason to doubt Cecile Richards, or Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW all know abortion kills unborn children.  There is also no reason to doubt they do not care.  To them, pregnancy is like a terminal cancer.  Pregnancy, to them, means a life sentence of stay at home mother-hood.  This is what they fear most.  More women staying at home to raise the kids, either leaving the workforce or never entering it.  In other words, pure, unadulterated selfishness.

Richards celebrate Roe vs. Wade as:

The time the Supreme Court recognized the inherent right to privacy for women…

But at that time, in 1973, because science and medicine were both more primitive, the Supreme Court was forced to make an error of judgement in ruling on the side of abortion, and granting, a right to it.  The Supreme Court, because the evidence did not yet exist, did not recognize that an unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception.  Science was not as advanced in 1973 and the technology to peer inside the womb was unavailable.  And yet, while this technology has been available for years now, we are still debating whether or not abortion is the killing of an unborn human being or merely the removal of a blob of tissue or collection of cells, or whatever other disgusting euphemisms the pro-abortion movement ascribes abortion as being.

Cecile explains the fundamental and critical importance of Roe vs. Wade and abortion this way:

[As] an urgent issue given that women were dying in emergency rooms across the country from self-induced abortions.

In other words, we are supposed to keep abortion on demand legal for all women because a tiny, tiny minority of women, a fraction of the actual number and percentage of women have, in the past, and of their own free will, self aborted, and died???  And should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, there is the possibility several woman could be forced, of their own free will, to revert back to the illustrious “back-alley abortions”???  The infamous metal coat hangers???  The storied and “heroic” long trips across the country to find the one person who can end their pregnancy in secret and save them from mother-hood???

Ladies and gentleman – Cecile Richards is engaging in deception, as is Planned Parenthood and the entire pro-abortion industry.  The vast majority of women who became pregnant prior to Roe vs. Wade carried the pregnancy through.  Granted, in cases of young girls, there was still that stigma and shame attached, and perhaps they were sent away to visit an “Aunt”.  However, abortion is not now legal, is not now so rigorously fought for strictly to keep women from engaging in those dangerous “back alley abortions”.  Abortion is kept alive, and fought for by Richards, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, etc. for two reasons.  One – to keep women and girls from having to decide over caring for a child or a career.  Two – because abortion is not done pro-bono, it remains a very profitable business and money-maker.

Another of Cecile’s canards:

But today, women across the nation are disturbed to see a set of politicians doing everything they can to undermine this landmark decision that has stood as a critical safeguard for women’s health for four decades.

To the many millions of American women who are pro-life, abortion has never “stood as a critical safeguard for women’s health”.  That is a feminist prevarication.  It has, of course, stood as a critical safeguard for liberal feminists who desire to indoctrinate other unsuspecting girls and women, into believing abortion, under the guise of a “right to privacy” is a woman’s right issue that cannot, must not be breached.  Because if it is, all women, so feminists profess, will be unduly subjected to the “horrors” and “unimaginable dangers” of the past.  Richards always invokes “dangerous and illegal abortions”, but what her greatest fear is, is seeing America revert back to the 1950’s and the “Father Knows Best“, “Ozzie and Harriet“, and  “Leave it to Beaver” way of life that makes feminists like Richards cringe and squeal in disgust.

Look at it this way – if abortion really provides a safeguard to women’s “health”, the challenge for Richards is to explain what the specific “health” issue is, which she and the rest of the feminists never do.  And if it is not life threatening, then it is treatable for both mother and unborn child.  So, why kill the child in the womb if both it and mother can live?  Until Richards and the entire pro-abortion movement, can be thoroughly challenged to define what specific “health” issue(s) warrants the killing of an unborn child, they will keep using “health” as a generic euphemism for what really amounts to their fear of America, and American values, returning to the era of the 1950’s.

There is nothing “anti-woman” about being pro-life.  Abortion rights are under assault now because more and more American women, and men, are coming to that conclusion.  The tide is indeed turning, and the filth of Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and the entire pro-abortion movement is slowly washing away.

We know Roe vs. Wade will celebrate its 40th anniversary next January 22nd.  Let us hope (and pray, for those of you who are religious) that there is a Republican in the White House by then, and the House and Senate is controlled by a majority of pro-life conservatives who will finally topple this national disgrace which has seen the killing of over 50 millions human beings, the vast multitude of which were exterminated needlessly and selfishly.

As new measures are introduced to put an end to the despicable, evil practice of abortion, Richards and her feminist pro-abortion ilk will kick, scream and move about even harder to keep the killing of unborn children legal.  We know that.

We also know that unborn children have the ability to kick and move about in the womb – a sign of life.  As Richards kicks and flails about madly, insanely, irrationally, fighting to keep abortion alive, will unborn children have to kick all that much harder to let their mothers know they are fighting to keep alive, that they want the chance to live  – and they do not want to be killed?

Martha Plimpton Is Wrong About Rick Santorum And Abortion

Martha Plimpton (Think, The Goonies) has publicly criticized Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum on his view regarding abortion.  Plimpton, who is pro-abortion, and like all abortion advocates hostile to any intervention into a woman’s right to “privacy”, has challenged Santorum’s perceived intolerance to what she feels is a matter best left between a woman and her doctor.  But as we know, as we ought to know, abortion is not so simply described as the “private medical decision” Plimpton opines.  Abortion is the termination (killing) of a live fetus, which is a human being.  Why on Earth do we want to relegate the killing of unborn human beings to the “privacy” of an abortion clinic room?

There are some “medical decisions” and procedures that are so inhumane, so inhuman, we have a right to be concerned they are taking place in “privacy” (secret) throughout America, and we have an urgent need to ensure these practices are made, and remain, illegal.  What is a human being to Martha Plimpton?  What is the value of being a human being to her?  Why does she not see that an unborn child is a human being?  Hasn’t she seen the sonograms?

Writes Plimpton:

“Mr. Santorum is the one who feels that the private medical decisions made between women and their families and doctors are public property and must be regulated and scrutinized by the government.”

When it comes to killing an unborn child, absolutely our government must “scrutinize” and “regulate”.  Plimpton, also a liberal, would demand our government “scrutinize” and “regulate” everything else in our lives, from the food we eat, to the gas we buy, the cars, clothes, homes, light bulbs, toilet paper and on and on.  But how dare the government take the pro-life position on the killing of an unborn child.

“The policies Mr. Santorum advocates would lead to the investigation and scrutiny of women’s medical decisions about their pregnancies. He seeks to criminalize abortion and to criminally charge doctors for performing them.”

The “policies” which Santorum “advocates” would prevent the unnecessary killings of millions of unborn children.  That’s rather impressive.  It cannot be said enough that the more we as a society allow, accept, condone, or are otherwise apathetic to, policies which undermine a respect for life, the more we degenerate into an animalistic society devoid and bankrupt of any values.

We have seen how societies of people without any values, without any concern for anyone or anything, such as the OWS protesters, live their hunter-gatherer lives, how they invade the sanctity of private space and land, squat on it and claim it as their own; a total disregard for the people who regularly use this space for business and pleasure, and how they leave an area after they are through slashing and burning it.  Someone can challenge it, but every last one of these protesters it can be certain is pro-abortion.  They have no respect for the people living, and making a living, in and around the areas they commandeered for their protests, why would they have any respect for, or put any value on, the lives of the unborn.  And – it was pro-abortion liberals who supported them throughout.  Conservatives, overwhelmingly pro-life, remained staunchly opposed to their shenanigans.

The point being – this is what America is headed for the more we devalue human life.  Societies without morals and standards, as represented by the OWS protesters, which do not emphasize a respect for human life, will devolve into the same deplorable mannerisms as the OWS protesters, begging for food, using any open space available to urinate and defecate and dump their trash.

Plimpton continues:

“How much more invasive can one get? How much bigger does the government need to be to be a presence in the examination room of every pregnant woman in the country?”

She says this, and yet is there any doubt she supports Obamacare, which is big government; which is invasive; which is a “presence in the examination room” of not just “every pregnant woman”, but everyone in the country, man, woman and child.

“If Mr. Santorum seeks to police women’s reproductive lives, he must expect to be subject to the same irrational, intrusive, embarrassing and degrading inquisition he intends to force on the rest of America.”

There is a gross misconception that to be pro-life is to be anti-woman.  That being pro-life stems from a sinister desire to control women’s lives, to keep them “barefoot and pregnant”.  But this is pro-abortion propaganda.  Women ought to be grateful, not resentful, for the pro-life movement.  Women ought to celebrate the pro-life movement, not condemn it.  Women ought to realize that to be pro-life is to be pro-woman, not the opposite.  It is NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood which have no respect for women.  It is pro-abortion organizations like them who see pregnant women not as mothers to be but as cash cows.

Being pro-life means we have a deep and profound respect for human life, including the untold millions of female children slaughtered in the womb every year around the world, intentionally, and because they are female.  The pro-life movement opposes abortion as a means of sex selection.  The pro-abortion movement embraces it.  Which side, then, is really on the pro-woman side?  That the pro-life movement would seek to prevent a woman from having an abortion in no way devalues the life and worth of the woman.  We place a high value on human life; we do everything we can to preserve, to save, to prolong life, from the moment of conception through the end of life and even into death and by respecting the right of the dead to rest in peace.  The same people who are pro-abortion also support harvesting human organs and other body parts, and using the dead for scientific research without their prior written consent or authorization.

Plimpton’s tirade against Rick Santorum is woeful indeed.  Would Plimpton support federal law mandating all hospitals and all medical staff perform abortions against their religious or moral convictions?  Is that not invasion of “privacy” also?  Is that not “big government” being a “presence” in every hospital in America?

Or is government only “big” and “invasive” in her eyes when it seeks to stop the killing of unborn children, but not when it seeks to control any other aspect of our lives, including those guaranteed under the Constitution?

Jesus Will Vote For Mitt Romney (Or The Republican Nominee) Part 2

UPDATEJohn Bolton Supports Mitt Romney also.

Liberals, who are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, have got it in mind that Jesus also is pro-abortion.  Where this scandalous and ridiculous notion came from is anyone’s guess.  Jesus was very much pro-life and never would have condoned abortion as a means of “family planning”.  Nor would Jesus have allowed himself, or his followers, to give up so easily, so readily on women and girls faced with the tough decision of whether or not to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, carry the child all the way through, give birth and then give the child up for adoption, thereby giving the child a chance, an opportunity to live, to exist, to grow up and grow into a productive member of society – or to simply kill the unborn child and discard it as trash or flush it away like human waste.  Jesus never advocated, nor would he ever have, killing unborn children.

Too many Christians have fallen prey to liberalism’s intentionally destructive mantra that the unborn child would be better off dead and whisked off to Heaven forthwith, into the arms of an awaiting and loving Jesus rather than be given the chance to coexist outside the womb in harsher, more unpredictable and unstable environments than we have come to expect Heaven would contain.  How can any intelligent individual, with a straight face, actually believe, accept, be and find comfort in, such malevolent nonsense?  Jesus would have preached courage to a pregnant woman or girl, even faced with hardship.  Of course, in Jesus’ day there was more emphasis on extended family and community than there is today.  That would have given the child a slight edge than we have in today’s society.

Still, there is the alternative of adoption.  There are organizations which can and will take over responsibility for a child which cannot be cared for by its mother.  Why is this the less convenient route for a woman to take?  There is nothing pro-Christian or pro-life about abortion.  Liberals, who have infiltrated and co-opted Christianity have weakened it dramatically by influencing and manipulating its teachings, distorting the words of Jesus and twisting what he said into something that fits snugly into their unholy agenda.

One cannot be a liberal and a Christian.  And yet, millions of liberals profess themselves to be Christians.  It is a facade and a charade, a trap, one in which liberalism itself has found a way to brainwash wandering Christians into falling into, or one for which Christians themselves, of their own free will, have sacrificed themselves.  Obviously there have been many failings and false teachings within Christianity in its past, and many faithful Christians have not been able to resolve those stains.  We can talk of slavery, poverty, class distinction, healthcare, and all the repulsive ways in which the “haves” have mistreated the “have-nots” over the course of human history, and even throughout the history of America.  However, the question still remains – how does giving into another false teaching, such as abortion, rectify and resolve the failings of past Christian teachings?  It doesn’t, and it never will.

What is a Christian’s motivation for being pro-abortion?  What does a Christian gain by promoting, and being tolerant of, apathetic and indifferent to, a practice that kills unborn children?

It is very daring, indeed, for one to be so brazen to call their self a Christian and to support abortion on demand.  What happened to them over the course of their life that they abandoned rationality for insanity?  Obviously Christianity failed them somewhere, or someone was able to get to them, get into their mind and convince them being pro-abortion is Christian.  Either that, or there are millions of people going around professing to be Christian but in actuality are playing a part; millions of people who are in reality liberal atheists, pretending to be Christians in an effort to weaken Christianity.

There is, after-all, a Christian pretender in the White House.  President Obama who, may or may not be a Muslim, who, at least might have once been a Muslim in his past, now is a socialist.  And as someone who supports abortion on demand, he is certainly no Christian.  It is liberalism and socialism which states there is no worth, no value, no humanness in unborn children.  If Obama really were a Christian he would not take this or any pro-abortion position.  If Obama really were a Christian he would have the courage to distance himself from the filth and muck that is Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and every other pro-abortion organization out there.  If Obama really were a Christian he would have the courage to denounce them, to fight against them, to crush them.  If Obama really were a Christian, he would be a Republican.

That Obama is a Democrat, is pro-abortion, is a socialist, does support abortion on demand, makes him an anti-Christian, a counterfeit Christian and a coward.

All the Republican nominees for President are pro-life.  Jesus is pro-life.  Christianity is pro-life, regardless of the deceit and underhandedness which has manifested and infested itself within Christianity by devilish liberals whose only purpose is to undermine Christianity for their own selfish and arrogant, and very dangerous, purpose.

As Jesus is pro-life, and Obama is pro-abortion, and Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and every other Republican contender for the Presidency is pro-life, whoever the republican nominee is who goes up against Obama, who can we be absolutely certain Jesus will be voting for in this upcoming 2012 election?

Because It’s Really All About The Right To Kill The Unborn Child To Feminists

A most gripping and paralyzing drama is apparently unfolding in Iowa, one from which radical feminists like Christine Pelosi (daughter of Nancy) cannot shake free.  It is possible to imagine her, with a group of her feminists from California, huddled together in a room, frightened, cold perspiration dripping down the lengths of their bodies, tears flowing from their eyes down into a deep puddle underneath their feet, their high heels and stocking drenched.  What all this does to the pounds of makeup applied to their persons one may want to force themselves not to envision.  But know this, feminists are locked in psychological and emotional terror as the world they have become accustomed to, the “generations of progress”, rapidly disintegrates and dissolves in front of them, not so unlike the wicked witch of the west.  (The one from The Wizard of Oz, not Christine’s mother.)  Well, perhaps Christine is being a bit over dramatic.

American women face a stark choice in the Iowa caucuses: re-elect feminist President Barack Obama who has advanced equality or caucus for a Republican who pledges to roll back generations of progress.

On the other hand, Christine might be legitimately terrified over nothing.  In other words, would a Republican presidential win mean women would:

  lose the right to vote

•  the right to work

  the right to be independent

  the right to travel freely without male escort

  the right to hold an opinion

•  the right to run for political office

  the right to live on her own, single and unmarried

•  the right to be a radical feminist

What exactly does Christine fear losing should a Republican win the White House in 2012?  Because even if a Republican does win the White House in 2012, there is not a single Constitutional right any woman has now that they will not then still have a tight grasp on.  Christine, the poor girl, has put herself in panic mode and, almost in a religious fanaticism, is making herself suffer for no legitimate purpose.

Feminism — equality without apology — knows no partisan bounds. Women across the philosophical spectrum make our own choices about our families, our careers, and our politics.

Christine is still wrapped in delusions of her own making.  Psychological help is what she needs.  What is she afraid a Republican in the White House will do to her and women across America?  Why then do so many millions of women flock to Republican candidates and endorse and support, and vote for, Republicans, and rejoice when Republicans win?  Why do these same women renounce the feminism of Christine Pelosi?

But in order to keep the freedom to make those choices, women need feminist leaders at the helm with policies that advance our progress. More important than identity politics are the feminist policies that allow women to make progress.

Falling, falling, falling – further into the depths of despair.  Oh, to think Christine is so far gone, her dreams flooded with, and her mind ravaged by, apparitions of fantasies that do not exist in reality.  What “progress” does she invoke?  What “policies” are slated for removal or will stagnate and collect layer upon layer of political dust with a Republican in the White House?  What “choices” will be denuded by a Republican and laid to waste?  What madness has driven her to write such fluff?

On economics…

Barack Obama, Democrat, has been an obstacle to women who want and need to work by keeping taxes and regulations high on business owners who would, with a much lower tax rate, have more opportunity to increase their hiring, including hiring women.  With a Republican in the White House, women have more assurance that our economy will recover, business will rebound and unemployment will drastically fall, all of which benefits women.

On health [care]…

Barack Obama supports the government taking over health care in America and having control over the choices we, including women, make about which doctors and hospitals we use, what treatments we can receive and when and how those treatments can be performed.  Under a government controlled health care system there will be fewer doctors, not more, resulting in a backlog of cases forcing millions of Americans, including women, to hold off on procedures which could prolong their health and save their lives.  Barack Obama supports dramatic increases in taxes, including on women, to pay for a government run health care system which, without competition from the private sector, and as a monopoly, has no real incentive to improve itself.  Under a government controlled health care system, the cost of health care soars while its quality plummets which endangers everyone, including women.

When it comes to our patriots, President Obama has committed to bringing our troops home honorably safely and soon, ordered the withdrawal of our combat troops home from Iraq…

By bringing our troops home without completing the overall mission, which included freeing Iraq from terrorism and terrorists, Barack Obama has put the lives of Iraqi Muslims, including their women and girls, who desired peace and cooperation with America in serious jeopardy and “at stake”.  The attacks on Iraqis, by Muslim terrorists, continues, even though our presence no longer casts a shadow.  Women in America have much to fear from a weak minded President such as Barack Obama.

Feminist leadership includes appointing…

  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who supports the  call for Israel to stop developing new settlements, a demand made by the Hamas led Palestinians, another Muslim terrorist group which despises women and the concept of women’s rights and condones honor killings.

•  DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who supports TSA agents groping and molesting young children, including girls, and old women, and women in wheelchairs and women with other disabilities at airports to screen them for explosive devices and bomb making materials, but opposes screening people who look Arab because that might be offensive and politically incorrect.

•  Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who supports illegal immigration in America, protecting illegal immigrants in America, providing illegal immigrants in America with jobs, free education and free health care and all the rights American citizens enjoy, all at the expense of American taxpayers, including women who must compete with illegal immigrants for jobs, girls who must compete for class space with illegal aliens, and all women and girls who must wait that much longer for medical attention while doctors attend illegal aliens before American citizens for fear of being sued by the ACLU, MALDEF, La Raza, and the federal government itself.

But what is it that most terrorizes Christine?  What has her nights filled with just as much dread and discomfort as her days, walking as a restless zombie throughout California?  She leaves us with a tantalizing clue, albeit obscure and somewhat hidden deep in subtext.

The Iowa caucuses will tell two very different stories about women in America: either we are capable of controlling our own bodies and planning our own families or we aren’t.

Alas, we may never know her true intentions from this erratic scribble she has provided us with.  And so, we can only hope Christine is able to get the help she needs to overcome her false fears of a Republican in the White House.  Because if she does not receive that help soon, when a Republican does win the White House, she will really lose control of her mind.

What will that look like?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 6: The “Extreme” Value Of Human Life

Just “how extreme” is personhood, and the idea set forth by pro-life supporters that a fetus in the womb is in fact a human life worth protecting?  To pro-abortion feminist, Michelle Goldberg, who writes of Republican “extremism”, and a teleconference debate sponsored by Personhood U.S.A., any attempt at preventing a woman from ending her pregnancy is an assault on “women’s rights”, and therefore too “extreme”, including and especially the “extreme” anti-abortion positions set down by the four Republican candidates participating:  Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.

In her article, Michelle Goldberg makes an attempt to redefine what “extreme” means.  Does she?

Michelle writes:

The event demonstrated that a commitment to banning all abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and threats to a woman’s health, is now the normative position among the party’s presidential contenders.

Do conservatives place too much value on human life and the unborn, too much emphasis on when life begins, we cannot see by putting women in situations which make it harder, illegal, to obtain a life ending medical procedure, an abortion, we are jeopardizing their health, their lives, and devaluing the self-worth of all women, preventing them from going back and living their lives as they once did, shattering their dreams, making it impossible for women to become anything more in their lives than mothers?  What defense do conservatives have against such a reckless abandonment of concern for women’s rights, for equality, for fairness and the right of all women to share in the American Dream; to be free and independent?

This is what liberal feminists posit.  To them, pregnancy changes everything for a woman.  Giving birth reroutes a woman’s destiny.  Caring for and raising an unplanned child takes women down a road different from the one they had hoped to travel.  Women become lost down this unfamiliar, unfriendly terrain.  The bitter coldness, the loneliness, of pregnancy, the hostile, unpredicted conditions and alienation cause her no other choice but to seek out help.  So, they hitchhike a ride on the abortion bandwagon.

She writes of Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann distinguished herself with her dishonesty, claiming at one point that Obama is “putting abortion pills for young minors, girls as young as 8 years of age or 11 years of age, on [the] bubblegum aisle.” (Obama, of course, recently overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception available over the counter for all ages, infuriating women’s-health activists.)

To be fair, Bachmann was not as dishonest as Goldberg portrays her. If but for the immense amount of pressure anti-abortion groups have been mounting, if but for their successful lobbying efforts, Kathleen Sebelius would have accepted the FDA’s recommendation to allow girls at any age, even as young as ten, to purchase the Morning After pill (Plan B), without their parents knowledge or consent – and Obama likewise would have overwhelming approved and applauded, and supported, the decision.

In other words, neither Sebelius or Obama gave any real consideration to:

  The cultural effects we would all be faced with of having to watch very young girls buy a drug behind her parents backs, to keep secret a sexual act she does not want them to know about.  Something liberal feminists want their parents, and society, to both accept and ignore.

•  The fact that teenagers are engaging in sex and rather than push for responsible programs which help them delay sexual activity, provide them with drugs which make the unwanted results go away, thereby allowing the irresponsibility to continue unhindered.  Something liberal feminists want conservatives to both accept and ignore.

•  The psychological effects all girls, even very young girls, would be forced to deal with, living in a society that does nothing to protect them from engaging in a behavior they are far too young to understand and appreciate.  Something liberal feminists want all girls to discover for themselves when they “feel they are ready”, even if that means at a very young age.

There has been considerable outrage within the pro-abortion and feminist community over what they feel is a betrayal by Sebelius and Obama.  Were they too “extreme” in preventing young girls from obtaining the Morning After Pill?  Michelle Goldberg believes they were.  And so do other feminists.  But don’t expect them to see their views as “extreme”.

Abortion, and the right to have an abortion, for any reason, regardless of the girl’s age or what stage the pregnancy is in, is more than a private choice, it is a fundamental and Constitutional right to Michelle Goldberg and liberal feminists.  Is that “extreme”?

Goldberg was also little impressed with Perry’s explanation for “flip-plopping” his views on abortion.  He now opposes it even in the case of rape and incest.

“This is something that is relatively new,” he said, citing a meeting with Rebecca Kiessling, a spokeswoman for Personhood USA who was adopted after her mother, a rape victim, tried and failed to abort her. “Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend the exemptions for rape and incest,” he said. “And over the course of the last few weeks, the Christmas holidays and reflecting on that…all I can say is that God was working on my heart.”

Is the pro-life position so “extreme”, so stubborn, we cannot accept abortion even in the case of rape and incest?  Even in the case of a woman’s “health”?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” we adamantly refuse to condone abortion, and fight vigorously to outlaw it, even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” so narrow-minded that we reject abortion as a means of “family planning” even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” so hostile, to “women’s rights” that we put her unborn child’s right to live ahead of those “rights” even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?

Is the pro-life position more “extreme” than the pro-abortion position?  Is Michelle Goldberg right?  Have we “gone extreme on abortion”?

Either life has value, or it hasn’t.  Is there a life inside the womb or not?  Does that life have any value?

Is killing it, even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman less “extreme” than fighting for its life?

Or, has Michelle Goldberg redefined the meaning of “extreme”?

From “The Daily Kos” With Hate/OWS Protesters Sue To Take Over Public Space (For Their Own Private Use)

•  The Daily Kos Says Bah Humbug To Life, Insists The Unborn Die, Decrease The General Population:

The Scrooges over at The Daily Kos, are incensed with Republicans.  It is inconceivable to them we would have such a reverence and respect for human life.

Because it’s apparently not yet clear enough that Republican presidential candidates are really, really, really “pro-life,”

Yes, we are “really, really, really pro-life” – just as you at The Daily Kos are “really, really, really pro-death.

Of course, they just went through this exercise last week, at Mike Huckabee’s propaganda-and-popcorn extravanganza, where Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and the Ricks Perry and Santorum talked about how super duper pro-lifey they are (while conveniently omitting their super duper pro-death penalty records). But that’s not enough, so they’ll do it all over again next week, when they can discuss at length how important it is to give rights to eggs but not women. Or gays. Or immigrants. Or convicted criminals. Or anyone else for whom they’ve discovered a loophole to exclude from their “all life is sacred” [BS].

“Memo” to The Daily Kos, convicted criminals and illegal aliens (what you refer to as “immigrants”) can’t vote either, nor do they have the same rights as law abiding, legal American citizens, but that doesn’t stop the Left from pandering to them – and somehow their signatures still find their way upon ballots.  How could that be?  As for gays and women, theirs are the same rights as everyone else under the U.S. Constitution.  However, killing your unborn child, which may be in a woman’s body, is nonetheless a separate and unique body – not the “cancer” you on the Left envision it.   In other words, it’s not “your body”, it’s not “your choice”.  These “things” as the Left describes them are human beings from the moment of conception.

We will have to see if any “ghosts” visit the contributors for The Daily Kos on Christmas Eve.  But, unlike Scrooge, the Left is probably hopeless.  Luckily, so is their pro-death cause, which is dwindling much in the same fashion the “Spectre of Death” dwindled into Scrooge’s bedpost.

What awaits the pro-abortion movement is the same fate as that which would have been Scrooge’s, had he not turned his life around.  Remember, Scrooge cared nothing about Tiny Tim in the beginning.  To Scrooge, Tiny Tim was exactly as an unborn child is to the Left.

In other words – worthless!

  Occupy Wall Street Protesters:  “America Is Like Tahir Square, Egypt”:

OWS protesters have not lost any credibility, since they never had any to begin with.  Yet, here is a perfect example of how and why these very misguided protesters have found another way to make fools of themselves.  They are suing for what they believe is their First Amendment right to free speech.  That is, they believe – actually believe – they have a right to invade public space, take it over, block it from any other use, prevent it from being used by anyone else, squat on it, live on it, trash it, use it as a toilet, and how dare the police, local government, we who have not lost our minds condemn them.  Their irresponsible, infantile behavior has resulted in millions of taxpayer dollars being shelled out to clean up what has otherwise been an “environmentally unfriendly” mess they left behind.

The lawsuit compares the treatment of OWS protesters at the hands of police with those protesters in Tahir Square, in Egypt.

“When I think about the tents as an expression of the First Amendment here, I compare it to Tahrir Square in Egypt,” said Carol Sobel, co-chairwoman of the National Lawyers Guild’s Mass Defense Committee.  “Our government is outraged when military forces and those governments come down on the demonstrators. But they won’t extend the same rights in this country,” she said. “They praise that as a fight for democracy, the values we treasure. It comes here and these people are riffraff.”

The OWS protesters are indeed “riffraff”, and far worse than that.  And so is Carol Sobel, for her comparing American protesters with those protesters in Egypt fighting for real change, for a democracy we already have and the Egyptians don’t.  The Egyptian military is slaughtering its citizens in its attempt to quell dissidence there.  Over here we use pepper spray and tasers, in limitations but with absolute good reason, and that is about as far as we go.  Over there, they beat the hell out of their women, and an Egyptian minister calls the beating justified.

Carol’s baseless and inflammatory remarks are wholly without merit and is further evidence of how the left has become completely unhinged.  The rights we have in America are immeasurable compared to those in Egypt.  But even American citizens ought to have enough common sense to know there is no First Amendment right to commandeer any public space, claim it as one’s own for a cause, and hold on to it indefinitely.  All that accomplishes is to turn a once public space into a now private space which we, the public, are still responsible for maintaining at our own cost.

Will we now see the OWS protesters for the despicable, whiny, sniveling, stuck-up brats they are?  Because they will be back come spring, and warmer weather.

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: